Thread: God - Seriously

Science on another witch hunt. Now if you tell them that it's possible they don't have all the answers, you're a nutjob. Don't worry about thinking just believe what they tell you and mock anyone that says different. That's science.

You have a very odd idea of what science is. A collection of theories and supporting data can't mock anyone. And the idea that science has 'all the answers' is not itself part of science. It's a part of Scientism, which is largely (but not exclusively) a straw man put up by people who want to make their own daft ideas look a bit more respectable; very few people think that science has a determining influence on, for example, ethics or aesthetics. And if you're going to take on 'science', it's probably best not to attack two absolutely rock-solid theories (evolution and climate change).

Originally Posted by 9999

Science on another witch hunt. Now if you tell them that it's possible they don't have all the answers, you're a nutjob. Don't worry about thinking just believe what they tell you and mock anyone that says different. That's science.

Love the theists.... logic takes a back-seat, as long as they get to demonize their enemies, paint stereotypes, and not have to provide any supporting facts...

Thanks for playing!

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

In a total absence of facts supporting the existence of good and fairly good explanations for why we might end up believing in/inventing God, it's reasonable to state with a fairly high degree of confidence that God doesn't exist.

That's a fair statement. Better than than slagging off others are doing and getting their posts deleted for. Who are the nutjubs?

There are a few key points that lead me to believe it more like 50/50 between intelligent design and a pure scientific origin to the big questions, such as the big bang and origins of life.

And yeah it's not fair to lump all of modern science in the same box, there are some great things being done these days, but I still think we're being held back by the closed minded element of the scientific establishment.

Some of the most recent, fascinating work in science actually goes in the direction of destroying everything we have been taught, and supporting the intelligent design hypothesis, which is becoming more and more popular amongst rogue scientists who dare think for themselves.

Most of the science preachers probably never had a single original scientific thought. Their line sure as hell is not scientific. And they over-estimate their level of confidence in their theories, imo.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Nothing necessarily wrong with that - we all have framework beliefs which aren't themselves open to investigation - but it does rule it out from being considered scientific.

Yep, and like I said, I'm not trying to be scientific. There is scientific evidence to support intelligent design, but it would just get auto-ridiculed. These people are not ready for this kind of information

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Who are you talking about here? You've not mentioned any specifics so

Actually the entire reason I got in this debate was because 'they' were trying to use the line 'there is no god because science says so'.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Is there? What is it?

It doesn't work like that. The original claim was made that god does not exist. So why should I be the first one to provide actual evidence? Doing so would appear weak and desperate. No one has came up with any evidence yet, at this stage it's all just a meta-physical debate, in which those shilling for science are losing because they launch into "God does not exist" with no evidence just vague references to some science they were taught.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Next it'll all be sheeple this and sheeple that.

You sound like a closed minded scientist that probably disses the likes of genius such as David Icke

I got in this debate was because 'they' were trying to use the line 'there is no god because science says so'.

I've already explained that and you agreed with it. To the best of my knowledge, all of the New Atheists say something similar to my post, though if the 'they' refers to posters on this forum, you may be right but I'm not sure who would care or why.

It doesn't work like that. The original claim was made that god does not exist. So why should I be the first one to provide actual evidence? Doing so would appear weak and desperate. No one has came up with any evidence yet, at this stage it's all just a meta-physical debate, in which those shilling for science are losing because they launch into "God does not exist" with no evidence just vague references to some science they were taught.

That's exactly how it works. You say I believe x because of y & z. Your first post on here was to say "...the garbage they teach about evolution in schools. Science is the new religion." but you've not been able to give a single reason why anything you say is true. And you think you're in some kind of position to pass judgement on all of modern science.

... shilling for science...

Definite nutter potential.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

I've already explained that and you agreed with it. To the best of my knowledge, all of the New Atheists say something similar to my post, though if the 'they' refers to posters on this forum, you may be right but I'm not sure who would care or why.

Well I think it's a bit rich to jump in a debate that is already happening, refuse to read what has been said and start demanding evidence.

If you want to know the reasons for my first post, I explained already. Again, you need to read the thread before hopping in, it's a bit inconsiderate to ask for things twice, but anyway... In schools they teach a plethora of wild theories as to how the universe came into being. To me, these are just as outrageous as the possibility of intelligent design.

Definite nutter potential.

If by nutter you mean someone willing to deviate from what main stream science, the media etc is telling us, and consider other possibilities, then yes, I'm a nutter, and you sir, are a witch hunter

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

logic takes a back-seat, as long as they get to demonize their enemies, paint stereotypes

right ... now read back over the thread you will find that there is a nice stereo-type for people who think intelligent design is a possibility; the nutjob.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

No. It gets refuted. That's how science works.

No. It gets auto-dismissed by a pre-conceived belief system. That's how scientism works.

Originally Posted by 9999

To say "God does not exist", and base this claim on science, you must also claim to have all the answers, which of course is more absurd than believing the bible creation myth.

"All the answers" is a handy strawman by theists. You don't need "all the answers" - just one, and that one is handily provided.

You, on the other hand, to support "intelligent design", actually *do* need *all* the answers - which you don't have.

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

You, on the other hand, to support "intelligent design", actually *do* need *all* the answers - which you don't have.

I don't 'support' intelligent design any more than I support the molten mass theory. It's just I don't rule out intelligent as a possibility. Now I'm a trolling nutjob...why...coz I cracked a joke. Don't take shit so seriously man. No I don't actually think David Icke is a genius.

So having an open mind saves me the burden of claiming that I'm right..."There is no God"...but to make such strong claims like this you really need to produce something. "the process of evolution occurs, therefore there is no god" or "god does not exist because he doesn't need to" is just not going to cut it sorry and I'm not going to be the chump and go right into giving evidence against such a weak, back-footed case.

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

You don't need "all the answers" - just one, and that one is handily provided.

Contrary I think posters in this thread have done a piss poor job of convincing me intelligent design is impossible.

Originally Posted by 9999

Contrary I think posters in this thread have done a piss poor job of convincing me intelligent design is impossible.

Your lack of convincing does not make it any more likely.

Just like a religious person's faith does not make a non-existent god any more likely to exist.

There is only one truth - it does not depend on belief.

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

Your lack of convincing does not make it any more likely.

You're right, it doesn't. And your blind faith in science is admirable.

The difference is, any evidence you provide is a possibility for me. But anything I say is impossible for you. You don't stand a chance to win this argument if you want to rule out intelligent design completely. This will likely just remain a mostly civil and healthy philosophical discussion. It's not fair to expect hard evidence to prove that intelligent design is impossible, but I've no idea why scientific people constantly put themselves in such a position.

On an onteresting note, I was just talking with my younger sister about this. She is in high school. I asked what they were teaching about the origins of life these days. It was good to hear some of this crackpot stuff I've been talking about is getting tossed around the classroom these days (intelligent design theories etc). A step in the right direction, and gotta be good for the intelligent design is possible case.

If they weren't teaching about it in schools 15 years ago, but are now, would that be evidence that intelligent design might be a slim possibility?

I've no real issue with Intelligent Design being in the mix at schools. It shouldn't be taught in science classes though, it belongs in the domain of religious/philosophy classes.

Originally Posted by 9999

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

Your lack of convincing does not make it any more likely.

You're right, it doesn't. And your blind faith in science is admirable.

Back to strawmen, aren't you?

Where have I declared "blind faith" in science? Not accepting one thing does not automatically mean blind acceptance of something else.

Except in your world, I guess, where you claim to not be religious, but are being terribly disingenuous in that statement, seeing as how you argue exactly as a religious person would.

Originally Posted by 9999

If they weren't teaching about it in schools 15 years ago, but are now, would that be evidence that intelligent design might be a slim possibility?

I would insist they also teach the theory of the Easter Bunny, or the theory of the resurrection of the dead, or the theory of the ice giants...

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

Where have I declared "blind faith" in science?

Well, you assert that intelligent design is completely impossible. I can only assume it's science that has led you to come to this conclusion. I also assume you don't know how the universe originated for sure...

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

you argue exactly as a religious person would.

Really? Maybe step back and have an objective view of who is saying what here. You're saying I'm 100% wrong. I'm saying anything is possible. Especially when those wild theories to explain the kick-start to evolution at the very beginning are flying around the education system and science journals.

Because it's totally impossible for an intelligent mind to have constructed DNA? It all fell together because it's simply too complex to have been designed?

I struggle to find any rationality at all in anything that supports the complete and total annihilation of any possibility that an intelligent creator exists, or existed.

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

I would insist they also teach the theory of the Easter Bunny, or the theory of the resurrection of the dead, or the theory of the ice giants...

...or the theory of magic life bringing comets hitting the earth, or the theory of extremely unlikely circumstances leading to single celled organisms, or...

Amazing how the tables are turned and it's science now trying to shove everything down your throats. The posters in this thread are carrying on like they are defenders of the faith. And if you dare to suggest there might be something a little 'super-natural' to this world, they auto-slag and accost.

The existence of God is quite simple to me, what gives life?? what can't life survive without??? and what did people used to worship in days gone by before mythical figures were invented??? Yes that's the right the sun. That big yellow thing you see in the sky unless of course you live in the UK in which case it is permanently hidden is your God.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The existence of God is quite simple to me, what gives life?? what can't life survive without??? and what did people used to worship in days gone by before mythical figures were invented??? Yes that's the right the sun. That big yellow thing you see in the sky unless of course you live in the UK in which case it is permanently hidden is your God.

A little too simplistic for me. The sun is just one part of a very complex system needed to support life.

Science has proven that carbon-based lifeforms can be created spontaneously under certain conditions; the only real question is whether life had a guiding hand or just evolved accidentally or evolved its own collective intelliegence as it evolved.

The concept of a single enity creating everything seems more and more farfetched if you give it any rationale, unbiased thought.

Santi,

RickThai

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

- it's not complex, it's actually quite simple.
- understanding how *long* 14 billion years are.

That's getting better. Now go on to expand and you may be on the road to attempting to prove your point.

Dissing for this straw-man thing (had to look that up), and then using '14 years is a very long time' seems a bit rich. The 'long time' straw-man has always been the fall back for evolution science.